Schroder sq and the new talea

Dear friends: Very interesting thread with so many " angles " touched and till now IMHO no precise unanimous conclusions.

Even that and thinking on the universal tonearm I think Dertonarm put the " finger where it hurts " when posted:

+++++ " The market NEVER asks for a perfect solution. " ++++

as a fact IMHO almost no one cares about and does not cares because poor knowledge on the subject, no money to buy a " perfect " high price audio items or simply because he is not looking for any more but what already had/has.

The level of satisfaction in audio in many people is really poor, many people even with high price audio systems that performs " so so " are satisfied with because its music/sound knowledge is low and they can't ask for more.

I posted several times that we read magazines audio reviews that raven very high very poor designed audio items and the worst is that not only reviewers but the more important part in the audio market: customers that raven too very poor designed audio items with poor quality performance but where customers are " satisfied ".

If the audio customers applaud an audio item that shows mediocrity: which is the message to that audio item designer/builder for future designs? when he already knows that the customers are satisfied with his poor design and are ready to pay/paid high $$$$ for those products.

As a high end customers almost all of us IMHO are a " shame of customers ", we have what we ask for that we " win " to deserve it.

How can we wait that almost all audio items designers ( there are exceptions. that already did and do it ) can give us better near " perfect " audio items designs if we are not asking for or we are not prepare for because our low knowledge and poor satisfaction level?

I'm sure that if we customers improve on the whole subject and reject poor audio items designs then the audio high end not only improve but could grow up faster in benefit of all of us.

I know that some audio items designers could give us a lot better designs: tonearms, cartridges, electronics, TT, etc, etc., but why to take the effort to achieve that? whom really cares? whom is/are asking for?: ALMOST NO ONE!!!!

That's why the audio high end IMHO is in many ways motionless/standing with no real hope to " keep walking " again. There are exceptions and these " rare " exceptions only confirm the " rule ".

It is a shame but at the same time very sad that like in this thread instead to talk on the " evolution/revolution " characteristics of an audio item we are talking on a similar items of what already found in the audio market ( for years ) and talk on philosophy subjects instead that " revolutionary " audio item like could be a " universal tonearm " for example.

In this thread we are thinking only that in the 2011 RMAF could be ashootout between the MK2 or MK 3 versions of the today tonearms instead to think to find out in that time not only new tonearms but " universal " tonearms: this IMHO is what we customers could be thinking about. Come on!, wake up!!!!

Anyway, good fun thread.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Sebastian: +++++ " using the same Dynavector XV1S. Talea is better in everyway period. " +++++

IMHO that does not means that the Talea is better but only that the XV-1s is a better match with that tonearm than with the DaVinci one.

Halcro and Lewm point out too of this important match tonearm/cartridge subject.

A diferent cartridge could perform better in the Grandezza than in the Talea and not for this fact we can say for sure that the Grandezza is " better in everyway " than the Talea.

Tonearm and cartridge are not two audio items but one audio item with a extremely intimate relationship to brings togeter a quality performance level.

This example tell us a lot why is so dificult to find out/design a universal tonearm where any cartridge can shows at its best and not in other tonearm.

The tonearm/cartridge relationship and how the resonances in between take " action " to tame the overall quality performance of any tonearm/cartridge combination is very complex, hard to understand due that there is no scientific tests on the subject and hard to predict in our today status.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Peterayer: Guillermo and I think that about quality performance our tonearm ( shows it through different prototypes. ) achieve the " universal " main target that we point out during our on desk design previous to start tonearm building.

We are trying to finish with all the tonearm " facilities " that we need as a tonearm users.

Unfortunatelly we take a lot of time because Guillermo and I were/are no full time dedicated to the tonearm project, we advance on it through our " free time " and due that our main target of " universal " characteristic we have to made and make " hundreds " of tests with dozens of every single cartridge you can imagine: current models, vintage ones and LOMC type as MM/MI too and I have to do it with our tonearm design and with almost any other tonearm you could think: not an easy task I can say but worth the effort in benefit of MUSIC and the improved enjoyment that all of us deserve.

. Certainly that in the first middle of next year will be out there.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Dertonarm: The Guillermo and I main target on our tonearm design is not mainly what MS, Technics and others did it in their designs to give the user/customer own tonearm facilities to match cartridge/tonearm resonance frequency, this is important but I learn that there are other more critical factors down there that affect the quality performance level.

As you point out our main target is that through " perfect mechanic-dynamic " each cartridge you mount in our tonearm can shows at its best like in almost no any other tonearm and this is our meaning of " universal tonearm ".

It is a very hard challenge for any one that want to design a tonearm. Are there trade-offs to achieve that target?, certainly are and Guillermo and I really analize each one of them and its influence ( what we are " loosing " in change of what. ) on playback quality performance level, even if a customer could detect something because those trade-offs.

Design a tonearm with our main target is a deep learning in something that appear very simple: a tonearm design is no rocket to Pluton!, but when you understand that that tonearm is only a 1/2-half product and you need to add the cartridge ( that fussy and multifacetic cartridge along several and different cartridges!!!. ) ) in the " equation " design then that simple tonearm design converts in something more a lot more complex.

It is not only our each one skills to design it but the way we use those skills where the time consuming on tests/voicing is higher than I could imagine at first but a extreme necessity to confirm if we are just " there ".

These tests take me and still take not only several hours for cartridges set up but to listening. I have to develop a process that make me not only more " easy " to find out/detect the differences but that asure me those differences were real because are these differences the ones that tell you if the " light " is still off or you already switch: ON!.

We are ( I think. ) at the finish part/step/stage of our tonearm design and we hope to share it to all of you in the next months ( 2011. ).

Anyway an interesting project full of several learning subjects and full of fun.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Halcro: Principles first guide on our tonearm design?, well first than all understand in a precise way the overall role of the tonearm/cartridge works. Not only on mechanical or geometrical levels but really " see " inside what a cartridge is asking for and how the tonearm could help to achieve what each one cartridge ask for shows at its best.

This " ask for " means how attain that the tonearm relationship with the cartridge could be nearest to " invisible/transparent " one with almost no influence.

Cartridge compliance is important but was and is only one factor in a tonearm design and IMHO not the one that mainly defined our tonearm design. Things were a little more complex than that. Either the pivot type ( unipivot, gimball or whatever. ) as important as it is was not either the main subject to attain our " universal " goal.
Obviously that these factors/subjects as many others were take it in count and important in the design.

I can't disclose yet ( till we have the patents on hand. ) the overall design but as I posted we hope could do it in the first middle of 2011.

All I can say is that is an interesting tonearm design that fulfill almost all needs of we customers/audiophiles as never before.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Kostas: IMHO I think it could not be in other way, as you say anything but a shootout but even way before the event take action both designers agree that that was not a shootout so I think that no one that attend were waiting for other that to grow up the people frienship.

Lewm put in very good terms that subject when he posted:

+++++ " to their own perceptions of how the two designs SHOULD differ sonically, given the differences in their construction. All I could tell was that I heard two different tonearm/cartridge/phono stage systems that sounded different from each other, " +++++

I think this is what almost all heard in that event and IMHO could not be in other way with two different signal sources and at the same time with two way different signal process phono stages.

Probably next time things could be different. I hope be there this next time.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

Dear Vertigo: IF you want a good alternaive to almost any other tonearm name it here this one could help you:

http://ierihon.com.ua/catalog/tonarmy/tonarm_4

owners said is the best and the one to go.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

or you can choose between these:

http://ierihon.com.ua/catalog/tonarmy

Have fun!